"Fusion GPS's Glen Simpson painted a disturbing portrait of hedge-fund manager William Browder. In his testimony, Simpson recounted his mounting suspicions that the carefully cultivated image of Browder as an anti-corruption crusader was perhaps something of a fiction. Simpson's testimony regarding what his firm found out about Browder would seem particularly newsworthy because it speaks to Browder's credibility as the principal architect of the 2012 Magnitsky Act [Canada's Bill S-226], which arguably set off a chain of events that deepened the new cold war between the US and Russia..."

The FBI is investigating whether a top Russian banker with ties to the Kremlin illegally funneled money to the National Rifle Association to help Donald Trump win the presidency, two sources familiar with the matter have told McClatchy.

FBI counterintelligence investigators have focused on the activities of Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank who is known for his close relationships with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the NRA, the sources said.

"All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because Mueller’s investigation is confidential and mostly involves classified information." ...

"A spokesman for Mueller’s office declined comment."

This was a bit interesting too, though:

"However, the NRA reported spending a record $55 million on the 2016 elections, including $30 million to support Trump – triple what the group devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race."

30 million to Trump is a lot of money to me. But in the context of presidential campaign spending...

Deutsche Bank is looking at evidence that companies related to Jared Kushner may have moved "suspicious" money through the German lender, according to a report.

The bank has informed a national finance supervisor about the transactions and will also inform special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian election meddling, Manager Magazin, part of the Der Spiegel group, reported Friday.

Seriously, though, does the use of unnamed sources bother you? There are times where I can see why it is necessary, but happening a whole lot this past year, no?

I tend to agree with the rule that Greenwald has put forth a few times over the years. If the source could be honestly considered a whistle blower, in that they are putting out information that it is in the public interest to expose, and that powerful factions want to hide, and they would face serious risk of retaliation if they were named, then they should be given anonymity. On the other hand, if they are merely putting out the party line, as a P.R. operation on behalf of powerful factions, they should be forced to go on the record, or else their comments should not be published.

There's a lot of room for disagreement about how individual cases should be classified, but there are plenty of clear examples as well. For example, all the anonymously sourced stories about Iraq's WMDs before the 2003 invasion are clearly improper, but James Risen's protection of his sources for the warrantless wiretapping stories he wrote for the NY Times in 2006 was clearly in the public interest.

It isn't totally clear where this case lies, but I am inclined to give McClatchy the benefit of the doubt, since they were about the only news outlet to consistently publish serious criticisms of the G.W. Bush administration's many bad policies.

"By criminalizing alleged 'contacts with the Kremlin' - and by demonizing Russia itself - today's Democrats are becoming the party of the new and more perilous Cold War. Until recently, Democratic Russiagate allegations were motivated primarily by a need to explain away and take revenge for Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 presidential election. Now, however, they are being codified into a Democratic Party program for escalated and indefinite Cold War against Russia, presumably to be a major plank in the party's appeal to voters in 2018 and 2020..."

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation has lost about five months worth of text messages between two staffers who worked on probes into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails and possible collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign..."

Michael and Smith: Me too -- agreement all around on Greenwald's position on whistleblowers.

I don't think this applies to the story Josh linked @ 753. The unnamed source is telling us about an (alleged) subject of the Mueller investigation, a Russian banker, who may have laundered money through the NRA to help fund Trump's campaign. There is no evidence leaked, no documents, and nobody else other than the source is in any position to confirm or deny what the source is alleging. It is gossip. The remaining 3/4's of the article summarize public information already reported about Russiagate, arranged for maximum effect on the reader. The article is an excuse to re-report the controversy, nothing more, and the source is just the excuse for it.

Michael says:

Quote:

If the source could be honestly considered a whistle blower, in that they are putting out information that it is in the public interest to expose, and that powerful factions want to hide, and they would face serious risk of retaliation if they were named, then they should be given anonymity.

The source in Josh's article is probably a regular lunch guest of the reporter. There are no powerful factions seeking to hide this information, they are seeking to get it out without giving context or any ability for the public to judge it. There is no risk to the source, they will face no retaliation, they are part of the system that allows factions within the intelligence community to get their message out through compliant reporters who prize access and expensive, expensed lunch dates with members of the Washington inner circle.

By all means, if the memo is important (although I doubt it) let's let the public see it. But followers of this story should also remember that if this or any classified document somehow exculpates Donald Trump on any front, he's had the power all along to declassify such information.

Why Trump hasn't done so on a number of these occasions has been one of the enduring mysteries of this affair. It's given pause to even the most hardened Russiagate skeptics.

This includes people like former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy of the National Review. McCarthy has been highly critical of the Robert Mueller investigation, but has also repeatedly wondered why Trump is not lifting the veil on some of these documents.

One of the few figures in the media to explore holes in Russiagate theories propagated by both sides, McCarthy had this to say in August:

"I can't get past a nagging question: Why must we speculate about whether the Obama administration abusively exploited its foreign-intelligence-collection powers in order to spy on Donald Trump's political campaign? After all, Trump is president now. If he was victimized, he's in a position to tell us all about it."

So #ReleaseTheMemo seems curious and disingenuous at best. But the Republicans don't have a monopoly on such behavior, either.

Recently, there's been an effort in Democrat-friendly media to walk back one of the major assumptions of #Russiagate, i.e. that the FBI's Russia investigation was spurred by either the Steele report, the case involving Carter Page, or both.

Stories have come out in both theWashington Postand theNew York Timesin recent weeks that appear to contradict their own earlier reports on the matter, pointing now at Mueller-target George Papadopoulos as the ostensible root of the Russia probe.

There's no conclusion to be drawn from any of this, other than that the genesis of the Russiagate investigation remains mysterious and neither party seems particularly motivated to clarify the matter for the public."

But here's what Democrats and Republicans are agreeing on right now:

"In another bizarre episode, at least ten Senate Democrats recently crossed the aisle to support a rollback of key provisions of the Dodd-Frank banking reform bill, the killing of which of course has long been a major policy goal of Trump's."

"Last week, for instance, numerous congressional Democrats – including Nancy Pelosi and chief Russia hawk Adam Schiff – voted to reauthorize the virtually limitless surveillance powers of this president. This is despite the fact that those same congressional Democrats spent much of the last year claiming Trump is an agent of a foreign power."

Do you have some inside information on who this source is, Mobo, or are you just guessing? You could be correct, but I can also imagine it might be an NRA insider, or a Republican Party insider, who would indeed face retaliation for speaking on the record. I don't know that this is the case, but as I said before, McClatchy seems to be one of the more ethical press organizations, so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure what you are giving them the benefit of the doubt on. That they were correct in protecting the anonymity of their source? That the information could possibly be true?

I'm saying what the source was saying had no value, it is gossip, because there is nothing to corroborate what they are saying. If it is true that this banker is being investigated, well, what is the public value in saying that? He's being investigated. We used to not talk about subjects of investigation until the investigation was finished, to avoid compromising the investigation, being unfair to the target of the investigation, or misleading the public.

I have no inside information. I do have an article posted by Josh that makes a few unsourced, fairly provocative claims about the Mueller investigation and the NRA, and then summarizes Russiagate for no apparent purpose. Other than clicks, I suppose. It's of a kind with many other similar articles published this past year, so I'm ok with my guess.

I think the big difference between Mobo's point of view and mine is that I am of the opinion that Russia has been spreading misinformation in western countries, as part of their foreign policy strategy, for many years, well back into the Soviet era. I think that the evidence supports the hypothesis that the Russian government headed by Putin, who was a high officer in the KGB, has continued to practice psy-ops, both in europe and the U.S., with their greatest success being in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. I don't think they expected Trump to win, any more than most of the pundits, but they did expect to damage Hillary Clinton sufficiently to advance some of their foreign policy aims.

Mobo, on the other hand, seems to think that none of this happened. As long as we disagree so deeply on the basic facts, it is pretty much impossible that we will agree on things like the propriety of the FBI investigation, or the ethics of the journalistic behaviour in question here.

I think the big difference between Mobo's point of view and mine is that I am of the opinion that Russia has been spreading misinformation in western countries, as part of their foreign policy strategy, for many years, well back into the Soviet era. I think that the evidence supports the hypothesis that the Russian government headed by Putin, who was a high officer in the KGB, has continued to practice psy-ops, both in europe and the U.S., with their greatest success being in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. I don't think they expected Trump to win, any more than most of the pundits, but they did expect to damage Hillary Clinton sufficiently to advance some of their foreign policy aims.

I always like to put things into perspective. So I think that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been very succesful at influencing US elections by means that appear on their face to be barely a half step away from illegal and deserve closer examination. On the other side of the equation I wonder how much Putin learnt from the Voice of America and other Western propaganda mills that have been desiminating disinformation about socialist governments since the 1950's. How much US money has flooded into the media in countries to influence elections in places like the Ukraine and Egypt and Venezula? Does anyone think that US spy agencies were not deeply involved in those elections and elections many other places in the world.

What intenational standard are we talking about because Kremlingate appears to be just another game with double standards where things our ruling oligarchy does are not scrutinized and any accusation against another competing country's ruling oligarchy is taken as truth until disproved. Its not like the machinations by the global oligarchies have anything to do with democracy.

I always like to put things into perspective. So I think that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been very succesful at influencing US elections by means that appear on their face to be barely a half step away from illegal and deserve closer examination. On the other side of the equation I wonder how much Putin learnt from the Voice of America and other Western propaganda mills that have been desiminating disinformation about socialist governments since the 1950's. How much US money has flooded into the media in countries to influence elections in places like the Ukraine and Egypt and Venezula? Does anyone think that US spy agencies were not deeply involved in those elections and elections many other places in the world.

What intenational standard are we talking about because Kremlingate appears to be just another game with double standards where things our ruling oligarchy does are not scrutinized and any accusation against another competing country's ruling oligarchy is taken as truth until disproved. Its not like the machinations by the global oligarchies have anything to do with democracy.

There is not a thing in this post that I disagree with. In my opinion, the U.S. is a far worse offender in subverting democracy than Russia is, and Putin may very well have learned from their example. However, Trump supporters, plus some lefties like Mobo and NDPP, seem to believe that the Russians are spotlessly ethical, and that in particular, no attempts were made by them to influence the 2016 presidential election. That is what I disagree with.

"...Now then, Part 1 and this sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the meaning be? In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for president, then the Democratic National Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in favor of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are still trying..."

"...To begin with, it's clear that the 'dossier' paid for by the neocons over at the Free Beacon and then taken up by Hillary Clinton was submitted to the FISA court by the FBI as the factual basis for allowing secret surveillance of the Trump campaign, possibly including Donald Trump himself. The FISA judge was reportedly not told who paid for the dossier..."

The FISA memo has apparently now been released. Here it is, commented upon by William Binney, whistleblower and former technical head of the NSA. Obviously, a major development...

Michael: Thanks for this response, this is a good way to move the discussion forward.

"However, Trump supporters, plus some lefties like Mobo and NDPP, seem to believe that the Russians are spotlessly ethical, and that in particular, no attempts were made by them to influence the 2016 presidential election. That is what I disagree with."

I think Russia tried to influence the 2016 election, and they are certainly not spotlessly ethical. I also agree entirely with Kropkin's post at 771. To me it is unsurprising and unimportant if Trump has business ties in Russia or Russia used bots to "influence" people on social media. I don't much care.

What is very alarming to me is the renewal of the cold war mentality in the US and Canada, and the absence of standards (or to be charitable to the news media, the slipping of standards) around evidence, fair reporting, and guilt by association. And unsourced stories and uncorroborated, obviously partisan leaks. I think that is far more damaging to progressive movements and our hopes for an improved or actual democracy here or in the US than Russia could ever be. Whatever power and expertise Russia has in "psyops" or mass media deceptions, it's ability to influence the American or Canadian public pales in comparison to the experience, technology and practice the intelligence community has in the US and here. This is why I think it's proper to focus on our/American actions and hypocrisy over Russian ones -- I leave that to Russian progressives.

I get that you may not agree with my take on what is important here, but I am curious if you see the US media's role in Russiagate as I do? Are you alarmed by how it's discussed in mainstream media, or do you think the media is being fair and serving the public well on this?

The thing that I find ironically amusing is blaming Russia for the US's lack of democracy when their system is awash with unaccountable and unlimited money. The Orange Herring is doing the job that the real US rulers were hoping he would.

The thing that I find ironically amusing is blaming Russia for the US's lack of democracy when their system is awash with unaccountable and unlimited money. The Orange Herring is doing the job that the real US rulers were hoping he would.

That’s totally besides the point. And it’s not a lack of democracy, but one particular election.

"The political conflict within the American ruling class and state over alleged Russian meddling in US politics and collusion by the Trump administration has entered a new and more explosive stage. Both contending factions are reactionary..."

¨The thing that I find ironically amusing is blaming Russia for the US's lack of democracy when their system is awash with unaccountable and unlimited money¨

Fine but let´s not limit the lack of democracy both in USA and Canada just to the money.....which controls the media...all built on a totally corrupt financial system which creates and dispenses the money to its elites.....

No the system is totally corrupt and unreformable...it must be replaced and it is the responsibility of all aware to take active engagement to build that replacement based on real democracy, local community autonomy and real economy based on real production and grass roots exchange.....a movement in Canada must be built which boycotts the system, its politics, its corporations and its media...there is no longer any alternative...time is running out and the bomb (Peter Schiff) is soon to blow.....

"A former federal prosecutor [Joe DiGenova] says the truth is starting to seep out about the Obama Administration's brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame an incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy."

A good summary of the issue thus far..

Whistleblower: FBI, NSA Conspire To Delete Data To Clear Up Their Crimes (podcast)

"Both the National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI have recently failed to comply with orders to preserve specific data, with one body claiming it didn't have enough storage to follow through, the other saying a trove was accidentally erased. In Binney's opinion, the loss of data is just 'a conspiracy to cover up the crimes [the NSA and FBI have] been committing."

Gee, NDPP, even Fox doesn’t obsess over Hillary Clinton as much as you do. Let me give you a tip, she’s a private citizen now. And what does this have to do with the topic of this thread? Oh right. To distract from it.

"A former federal prosecutor [Joe DiGenova] says the truth is starting to seep out about the Obama Administration's brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame an incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy."

A good summary of the issue thus far..

Whistleblower: FBI, NSA Conspire To Delete Data To Clear Up Their Crimes (podcast)

"Both the National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI have recently failed to comply with orders to preserve specific data, with one body claiming it didn't have enough storage to follow through, the other saying a trove was accidentally erased. In Binney's opinion, the loss of data is just 'a conspiracy to cover up the crimes [the NSA and FBI have] been committing."

"We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the US intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the US democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the US election, but leading officials of the US intelligence community..."

Ars Technica has a story about how a Dutch intelligence agency literally watched the "Cozy Bear" group in a Moscow university building hack the DNC. This makes it a bit harder to claim the Russian intervention in the 2016 election is all made up by the Deep State.

Ars Technica has a story about how a Dutch intelligence agency literally watched the "Cozy Bear" group in a Moscow university building hack the DNC. This makes it a bit harder to claim the Russian intervention in the 2016 election is all made up by the Deep State.

Interesting story and it highlights why I think that Russian "interference' in the US election is just a diversion for the easily led. EVERY and I mean EVERY major country in the world has a spy agency that is capable of and engages in covert computer activity around the globe. None of their actions are legal if they are in someone else's country. This was a Dutch invasion of Russian private space and taken as a good thing for them to be doing.

There is nothing to Kremlingate in the grand scheme of things. Anyone who can't imagine a scenario that includes NATO spy agencies trying to interfere in the Ukranian, Russian and other former SSR's elections is IMO brain dead. As interference in an election goes what is alleged in Kremlingate is right up there with robo dialing by our very own Conservative party; only very marginally effective and in retrospect unlikely to have made an actual difference in the outcome.

In the meantime instead of trying to fight the oligarchy that rules NATO lets all decry the fact that an asshole stole the election from a syncophant.

Plus if it were just a case of Putin vs Washington it wouldn't be such a big deal. Problem is this interference - from all imperialist powers - always plays on hatred, xenophobia, and discrimination.

This is not about the fact Hillary lost; it is about the fact these tensions have gotten far worse, both here and in Europe. And a great deal of it can be traced directly to propagandist lies spread in the media and through the internet, and financial and intelligence support for parties (mostly fascist and racist) bent on undermining the status quo.

So I would put the Dutch actions near the bottom of the list. Russia isn't really much higher in this instance, the American system exposed a weakness and they took advantage of it.

The story is not really about bad Russia (at least it shouldn't be). Rather it is about the stupidity of the US political class and whether or not some people to some degree sold out their country. Trump was a major shift to the right (taxes, immigration, judges) of an already rightwing country so there is some joy in watching the spectacle of it all.

That is not a form of criticism that is valid or illuminating. Though it is all too common on this site.

If Infowars (yeah, I know, mostly crap) somehow actually did get the leaked Nunes memo (not impossible), then the memo and it's implications, whatever one's position, would be a matter for discussion--regardless who first published it.

The real criticism is that the Infowars headline is in fact bullshit. What they actually publish is an alreadly declassified document with, from my cursory glance, contains no new specifics on US spying on its own citzens or on Trump in particular--despite the sensational interpretations the author inserted.

In related news, The House "Intelligence" Committee has voted to release the Nunes memo.

But my guess is this Republican hyped memo won't amount to much or it would have been released/leaked already, instead of such a long organized clickbait buildup.

As Glenn Greenwald said to this ridiculous Trump Jr tweet days ago:

DonaldJTrumpJr:The democrats are lucky Republicans are honorable people. If we played the game like they do the memo would be all over CNN and everywhere else by now. Maybe it’s time we stoop to their level? #releasethememo
6:35 AM - 19 Jan 2018

ggreenwald:This makes no sense for multiple reasons: 1) your dad could declassify the docs, which he should do if they really show pervasive criminality & spying abuses; 2) it's not "stooping" to reveal high-level crimes; it's a duty; 3) refusal to release this suggests it's all bullshit.

Glenn Greenwald added,
Donald Trump Jr.
Verified account

Jan 19
MoreOne last point: a memo authored by Devin Nunes is totally useless no matter how inflammatory the assertions are if they are unaccompanied by underlying, verifiable corroboration

EVERY and I mean EVERY major country in the world has a spy agency that is capable of and engages in covert computer activity around the globe. None of their actions are legal if they are in someone else's country. This was a Dutch invasion of Russian private space and taken as a good thing for them to be doing.

And another thing that every country does is try to stop the other countries from invading their private space, and punish their own citizens who help the other countries do that. Even as they do the same thing in reverse.

As for seeing the Dutch invasion of Russian space as a good thing, the Russians probably don't, and would likely punish any Russian citizen who was found to have helped out in the espionage. As they are well within their rights to do. And I don't think too many people in Russia are gonna be saying "But, but, we spy on other countries, so how can we punish our own traitors?"

"With the House Intelligence Committee vote yesterday to release its four page memorandum reportedly based on documentary evidence of possible crimes by top Justice Department and FBI leaders, the die is cast. Russia-gate and FBI-gate are now joined at the hip.

I almost feel sorry for what is called 'mainstream media' and - even more so - for the majority of Americans deceived by the prevailing narrative on Russia-gate. Even though that narrative now lies in shreds there is no sign so far that the pundits will fess up and admit to spreading a far-fetched, evidence-impoverished story that was full of holes from the get-go.

As for brainwashed Americans, pity them. It is far easier to deceive folks than to convince them they have been deceived, as Mark Twain once wrote..."

Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said.

"The four-page memo compiled by the GOP Chair of the House Intelligence Committee accuses the FBI and DOJ under the Obama administration of securing a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign based on the notorious 'Steele dossier'. Declassified by President Donald Trump and published by the committee Friday [see included link] over strong objections by Democrats, the DOJ and the FBI, the memo lays out the origins of the warrant to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page, in the dossier funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The so-called Steele dossier 'formed an essential part' of the FISA probable cause order obtained by the FBI from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) on October 21, 2016. The warrant was extended 3 times, also on the basis of the Steele dossier."

"President Trump has declassified the much-anticipated Nunes memo, which reveals that Christopher Steele's ties to the Clinton campaign, as well as the political bias of several members of the FBI and Justice Department involved in the investigation, were not properly disclosed to the FISA court. CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern joins RT America's Anya Parampil to comment."

"The partisan fight over Rep Devin Nunes' memo is consuming Washington and even leading prominent liberals to question if Nunes is a Russian agent. Stephen F Cohen, professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton, says Russiagate has now become 'much more than McCarthyism'..."

The facts about this big nothingburger: Carter Paige had been under surveillance since 2013. It was evidence from Papadopolous that led to the FISA warrant. The GPS document was initially commissioned by the right-wing Washington Free Beacon.